Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 8:17 PM
25 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, JonF, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,001 Year: 5,038/19,786 Month: 1,160/873 Week: 56/460 Day: 56/91 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Do animals have souls?
kalimero
Member (Idle past 551 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 226 of 303 (331014)
07-12-2006 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by New Cat's Eye
07-11-2006 6:09 PM


The claim that no evidence has been presented stands but that was not your original claim.

Message 184
Really? It has no proof, unlike "soul"?!?

Message 188
You do understand that this is the science forum?
You should try to base your arguement on evidence or at least some kind of logic I can debate.

Nobody has presented objective evidence. Plenty of us claim to have subjective evidence of our own souls. The claim that evidence does not exist should not be made unless you throw the objective in there.

2ice_baked_taters has already said that there is no such thing as completely objective evidence and I agree. But you do have to present evidence which can be tested/falsafied.

False. There could be stuff/things that exist that are not scientifically detectable. For all practical purposes, the assumption that they do not exist works great, but it remains an assumption. My subjective experience suggests that my soul does exist and the lack of scientific detection doesn't convince me otherwise.

If the soul is not scientificly detectable then you wouldnt be able to experience it, because science comes down to what we experience, subjective as it may be it has to be tested.

I disagree. I think the impact on the world occurs in the mind, which lies somewhere between the physical and spiritual realms.

I think you just slipped out of the science forum right there; you assume the there is a spiritual world?

Thats what I meant. I meant what you meant. It was a bad cut n paste job. But it still remains that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science (and you) assume it does not exist and, with the principle of parsimony, it it the proper thing for science to do

I never said that the soul doesnt exist (nor does science) - I have no contradictory evidence, all I'm saying is that there is no evidence that it does exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occham%27s_Razor
(like you said - parsimony)

but with my subjective evidence I conclude that the soul does in fact exists (with no objective demonstration required).

Required by whom? you? science requires demonsrations of the propeties of a soul, and I demand those things for my subjective experinces to, or else how would I knnow that I'm not just fooling myself. Its sad to see a person abandon critical thinking (not you!!! :) )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2006 6:09 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2006 9:45 AM kalimero has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 303 (331094)
07-12-2006 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by kalimero
07-12-2006 2:28 AM


2ice_baked_taters has already said that there is no such thing as completely objective evidence and I agree.

Completely? I agree too but I'd say that there is completely objective evidence for all practical purposes. An apple falls out of a tree and hits me on the head, that's completely objective evidence in my book even if one could argue that you can't even really know that the apple exists in the first place.

If the soul is not scientificly detectable then you wouldnt be able to experience it

False. You have too much faith in science. Its power is not limitless.

because science comes down to what we experience, subjective as it may be it has to be tested.

That line doesn't make sense to me. I think we are using the term subjective differently.

I think you just slipped out of the science forum right there; you assume the there is a spiritual world?

I don't assume there is a spiritual world, I conclude it :cool:

I never said that the soul doesnt exist

Oh but it seemed like you did. That's the whole reason I jumped in this thread. See my Message 221. It was a reply to what you typed in Message 218.

kalimero in Message 218 writes:

there is no evidence to support a soul and therefore it does not accuratly decribe the world.

You later clarified that the "it" was refering to 2ice's hypotheisis and not the existance of a soul. I was confused by the ambiguity.

I have no contradictory evidence, all I'm saying is that there is no evidence that it does exist.

That's fine. I'm saying that I have personal un-scientific subjective "evidence" for the existance of my own soul. So, does this evidence exist? I say yes, you say no. Sounds like a segway to a new thread to me...(dibs on not starting it)

but with my subjective evidence I conclude that the soul does in fact exists (with no objective demonstration required).

Required by whom? you

Yes, me. I don't require objectivity nor scientific discovery to believe that something exists.

science requires demonsrations of the propeties of a soul, and I demand those things for my subjective experinces to, or else how would I knnow that I'm not just fooling myself

You could know you aren't fooling yourself by trusting your own judgment. If you don't think you have a soul then fine that's cool, but I wouldn't hold that belief because science has failed to discover it. How do you know your not being fooled?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by kalimero, posted 07-12-2006 2:28 AM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by ramoss, posted 07-12-2006 11:49 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 236 by kalimero, posted 07-13-2006 10:36 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 240 by Wounded King, posted 07-13-2006 12:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 228 of 303 (331118)
07-12-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by New Cat's Eye
07-12-2006 9:45 AM



You could know you aren't fooling yourself by trusting your own judgment. If you don't think you have a soul then fine that's cool, but I wouldn't hold that belief because science has failed to discover it. How do you know your not being fooled?

The way he knows he is not being fooled is that he is not relying strictly on his 'subjective senses', but rather on evidence that can be presented and examined by other people.

How do you know you're not being fooled?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2006 9:45 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2006 12:13 PM ramoss has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 303 (331124)
07-12-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by ramoss
07-12-2006 11:49 AM


The way he knows he is not being fooled is that he is not relying strictly on his 'subjective senses', but rather on evidence that can be presented and examined by other people.

Conversely, if you rely strictly on evidence that can be presented and examined by other people, how do you know that you're not being fooled?

How do you know you're not being fooled?

I don't, really, but I don't believe that I am (realizing that being fooled well enough means you don't think your being fooled). Its a judgement call, just whip out your bullshit detector. My says that the soul does, in fact, exist.

Also, other people I've talked/typed to have similiar feelings on the subject so I don't think it is strictly subjective, it just isn't scientifically observable*. Limiting yourself to that which is scientifically observable could limit the truths you discover, IMHO.

*My opinion on that is that the soul shouldn't be objectively verifiable because then there would be no reason for faith, which I believe is something that god wants to exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by ramoss, posted 07-12-2006 11:49 AM ramoss has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by ramoss, posted 07-12-2006 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 230 of 303 (331127)
07-12-2006 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by New Cat's Eye
07-12-2006 12:13 PM


The chances are much less.. because there is this thing known as verification from other sources. There is much less chance of fooling
oneself if the evidecne can be examined and analyised by multiple people.

That is something that you can't have with 'subjective' evidence.

All you are going on is a feeling , and wishful thinking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2006 12:13 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2006 12:35 PM ramoss has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 303 (331128)
07-12-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by ramoss
07-12-2006 12:28 PM


The chances are much less.. because there is this thing known as verification from other sources. There is much less chance of fooling
oneself if the evidecne can be examined and analyised by multiple people.

I think you misunderstood my point, probably because I expressed it poorly.

I was saying that if you rely strictly(exclusively) on objective evidence, and assume that if science can't measure it then it doesn't exist, then how do you know you are not being fooled into failing to realize that things do exist that are not scientifically observable.

All you are going on is a feeling , and wishful thinking.

But the feelings are "verified" but other people's feelings, albeit a very unscientific method.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by ramoss, posted 07-12-2006 12:28 PM ramoss has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by ramoss, posted 07-12-2006 1:03 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 232 of 303 (331147)
07-12-2006 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by New Cat's Eye
07-12-2006 12:35 PM


Oh. other people have these 'feelngs' to be sure.

But, if you look at peoples reaconts to the feelings , objectively, their interpretation of these feelings are primed by their society.

You interpret these feeligns as 'jesus'. People in a hindu culture do not. People in an islamic culture interpret it as 'allah'. Examination
of the phenemonia does not show any evidence that there is a trigger to these experainces that is not outside the brain, brought on by purely physical triggers.

Since it is shown that these experiances are intepreted depending on culture, it can be shown that the experiances are molded by expectations... and therefore not evidence of what you claim it is evidence for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2006 12:35 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2006 2:17 PM ramoss has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 303 (331170)
07-12-2006 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by ramoss
07-12-2006 1:03 PM


You interpret these feeligns as 'jesus'. People in a hindu culture do not. People in an islamic culture interpret it as 'allah'.

But we are all interpreting something. This seems to suggest that something is there.

Examination of the phenemonia does not show any evidence that there is a trigger to these experainces that is not outside the brain, brought on by purely physical triggers.

They have not been shown to be purely physical. There is a lack of evidence of a trigger outside the brain, but it takes the principle to assume that without evidence, it does not exist and is only physical. To me, it seems to be different. I don't limit my feelings because of science.

Since it is shown that these experiances are intepreted depending on culture, it can be shown that the experiances are molded by expectations... and therefore not evidence of what you claim it is evidence for.

Well I don't think it has been shown that they are molded by expectations.

You could say the culture causes the feeling, I think the feelings caused the culture.

And it definately hasn't been shown to be physical without the need for that assumption(which probably isn't possible).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by ramoss, posted 07-12-2006 1:03 PM ramoss has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by ramoss, posted 07-13-2006 8:39 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 3958 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 234 of 303 (331370)
07-13-2006 4:18 AM


I have maintainted this for some time now.
This thread is answered by belief only.
Relying on science to answer all questions is a belief that all things will be answered by science. It is dogma/faith in that all things are physical. There is no way around that. Many here continually wish to argue that a belief that all things are physical is not a belief. All scientific research is limited to all things physical. that is it's nature.
Science will not give me:

a reason to live.
a reason to love
faith In people.
Hope of any kind.

Science will not help me:
Love anything or anyone
Be a better person
Understand what it means to share

In fact for all the things that truly matter in life science is absolutely useless. I understand this.

In this thread it is no more authorative than any other belief.
Still people seem to cling to this belief.
When will they learn. :)


Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by kalimero, posted 07-13-2006 10:57 AM 2ice_baked_taters has responded

ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 235 of 303 (331407)
07-13-2006 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by New Cat's Eye
07-12-2006 2:17 PM


Well, the 'something' that can be demonstrated is the specific brain activity. There is no evidence that these 'feelings' are anything but one sectoin of the brain being active, while the other section of the brain (that deals with awareness of self) is more quiessed than usual.

This can be brought about through artificial stimulation of the brain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2006 2:17 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-13-2006 12:04 PM ramoss has not yet responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 551 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 236 of 303 (331445)
07-13-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by New Cat's Eye
07-12-2006 9:45 AM


Completely? I agree too but I'd say that there is completely objective evidence for all practical purposes. An apple falls out of a tree and hits me on the head, that's completely objective evidence in my book even if one could argue that you can't even really know that the apple exists in the first place.

Ok, so how do we determain whats more objective (more likly to be true) and what is less - I say testing the evidence and peer review.

False. You have too much faith in science. Its power is not limitless.

Science deals with the ability to measure the physical world - its actualy just looking around (thats how it was done a long time ago and it has not changed much).

That line doesn't make sense to me. I think we are using the term subjective differently.

Maybe your right - how about a definition?
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/subjective
I think #4 or #5, how about you?

I don't assume there is a spiritual world, I conclude it

conclude it from what? how about testing it?

Oh but it seemed like you did. That's the whole reason I jumped in this thread. See my Message 221. It was a reply to what you typed in Message 218.

I meant that I dont have any contradictory evidence (my bad).

That's fine. I'm saying that I have personal un-scientific subjective "evidence" for the existance of my own soul. So, does this evidence exist?

You can believe whatever you want - I am a scientist and I think that it doesnt matter what your "subjective evidence" tells you - for the sake of honesty you have to verify it - thats what double blind tests are for - removing the subjecivity.

I say yes, you say no.

Actually I say I dont have enoght evidence, but for all practical purposes (as you said) it is no.

Sounds like a segway to a new thread to me...(dibs on not starting it)

On the 16th I have my last final test (physics 1) then I'll be happy to.

Yes, me. I don't require objectivity nor scientific discovery to believe that something exists.

And have you even been wrong?

You could know you aren't fooling yourself by trusting your own judgment. If you don't think you have a soul then fine that's cool, but I wouldn't hold that belief because science has failed to discover it.

I dont trust my own judgment that much, I have been wrong before - and I want to be as right as I can in the future.
science doesnt have to discover that there is [b]no[/n] soul, there is no evidence for it.

How do you know your not being fooled?

I dont. But I constantly check myself, so the probability of me being wrong at any time is lower then if I didnt check myself. This is because there are an infinant number of beliefes I can believe, but only one (or so it may seem) is right, therefore the probability of me getting it right the first time is 1 over infinaty - or IOW zero. The more I check myself the better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2006 9:45 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-13-2006 11:55 AM kalimero has responded

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 551 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 237 of 303 (331454)
07-13-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-13-2006 4:18 AM


Science will not give me:
a reason to live.

How about making up your own goals for once?

a reason to love

Empathic behavior is esential in social animals such as our selves.

faith In people.

so are inter-personal bonds.

Hope of any kind.

I would say the ability to imagine a posible future gives alot of hope. (a trait not unique to humans BTW)

Science will not help me:
Love anything or anyone

The manufacturers of Flutine would disagree.

Be a better person

You dont see how science can help people?!?
How about...umm...I dont know...medicine?

Understand what it means to share

I'm sure someone with a background in psycology could tell you. Being a biology student I would have to go with the biology of scocial behavior, or empathy as I have stated above.

In fact for all the things that truly matter in life science is absolutely useless.

Thats just sad.

I understand this.

Your just going to assert that? Is that your whole arguement?

Still people seem to cling to this belief.
When will they learn.

And YOU are going to teach us? Try providing evidence first.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-13-2006 4:18 AM 2ice_baked_taters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-14-2006 10:02 AM kalimero has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 303 (331475)
07-13-2006 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by kalimero
07-13-2006 10:36 AM


2ice_baked_taters has already said that there is no such thing as completely objective evidence and I agree.

Completely? I agree too but I'd say that there is completely objective evidence for all practical purposes. An apple falls out of a tree and hits me on the head, that's completely objective evidence in my book even if one could argue that you can't even really know that the apple exists in the first place.


Ok, so how do we determain whats more objective (more likly to be true) and what is less - I say testing the evidence and peer review.

Yeah, that works but remember that it must be objective evidence.

If the soul is not scientificly detectable then you wouldnt be able to experience it

False. You have too much faith in science. Its power is not limitless.

Science deals with the ability to measure the physical world - its actualy just looking around (thats how it was done a long time ago and it has not changed much).

Right, so if the soul existed and it was something that you had to look into yourself to find (obtaining subjective evidence), it would not be something that we could not investigate scientifically. This failure of science should not be a reason to conclude (or assume) that the soul does not exist. Occam’s Razor works great in the lab, but not when talking about spirituality.

because science comes down to what we experience, subjective as it may be it has to be tested.

That line doesn't make sense to me. I think we are using the term subjective differently.

Maybe your right - how about a definition?
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/subjective
I think #4 or #5, how about you?

#4 is fine and the one I have been using.

quote:
peculiar to a particular individual

That’s why your line above makes no sense. If we are experiencing it and testing it then it is no longer subjective.

I think you just slipped out of the science forum right there; you assume the there is a spiritual world?

I don't assume there is a spiritual world, I conclude it :cool:

conclude it from what? how about testing it?

I conclude it from my subjective experience. When I look into myself I see a soul in there (figuratively speaking typing). I test it when I ask friends and they say that they’ve found their soul too. Not being able to scientifically/objectively verify the existence of my soul does not take away from the experiences I have already had. It isn’t a reason, for me, to stop believing in the soul.

I have no contradictory evidence, all I'm saying is that there is no evidence that it does exist.

That's fine. I'm saying that I have personal un-scientific subjective "evidence" for the existance of my own soul. So, does this evidence exist?

You can believe whatever you want - I am a scientist and I think that it doesnt matter what your "subjective evidence" tells you - for the sake of honesty you have to verify it - thats what double blind tests are for - removing the subjecivity.

For the sake of honesty I have to agree with what I think is true. I also believe that the subjectivity is important because if we had objective evidence for the soul (and God) then belief in it/him would be the default and there would be no need for faith (which is something that god must want us to have).

I say yes, you say no. Sounds like a segway to a new thread to me...(dibs on not starting it)

On the 16th I have my last final test (physics 1) then I'll be happy to.

Damn, good luck. Its reasons like those that I’m glad I’m done with school.

but with my subjective evidence I conclude that the soul does in fact exists (with no objective demonstration required).

Required by whom? you

Yes, me. I don't require objectivity nor scientific discovery to believe that something exists.

And have you even been wrong?

Yes. How about optical illusions.

You can have a subjective experience that something is moving when it is not. Other people can see it too and you’re all wrong. I am very well aware that this is possible with my experiences with my soul. This possibility doesn’t outweigh my belief.

science requires demonsrations of the propeties of a soul, and I demand those things for my subjective experinces to, or else how would I knnow that I'm not just fooling myself

You could know you aren't fooling yourself by trusting your own judgment. If you don't think you have a soul then fine that's cool, but I wouldn't hold that belief because science has failed to discover it. How do you know your not being fooled?

I dont. But I constantly check myself, so the probability of me being wrong at any time is lower then if I didnt check myself. This is because there are an infinant number of beliefes I can believe, but only one (or so it may seem) is right, therefore the probability of me getting it right the first time is 1 over infinaty - or IOW zero. The more I check myself the better.

The probability of getting it right is worthless to whether or not it is right. I check myself too and I still feel like I have a soul so I continue to accept its existence. If your using something that has a limit to what it can detect to determine what is real then you could very well be missing out (being fooled). If you have had no experience with your soul and really don't think you have one, then that's fine. I just don't think you should use the lack of scientific discovery to be the reason that you don't think it exists. Becuase if it is real and does exist, science is not gonna find it and neither are you.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : struck out the extra 'not' in my sentence with the unintentional double negetive


Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by kalimero, posted 07-13-2006 10:36 AM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by kalimero, posted 07-13-2006 3:58 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 303 (331479)
07-13-2006 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by ramoss
07-13-2006 8:39 AM


Well, the 'something' that can be demonstrated is the specific brain activity. There is no evidence that these 'feelings' are anything but one sectoin of the brain being active, while the other section of the brain (that deals with awareness of self) is more quiessed than usual.

This can be brought about through artificial stimulation of the brain.

If the soul exists and interacts with the physical world through the mind via some section of the brain then your senario would be expected. The demonstation that there is some brain activity involved is not evidence that the mind and the soul are NOT involved. Certainly there is no evidence that they ARE involved and the principle of parsimony removes them, but I believe in the soul already and this is not evidence against it, IMO.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by ramoss, posted 07-13-2006 8:39 AM ramoss has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 240 of 303 (331494)
07-13-2006 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by New Cat's Eye
07-12-2006 9:45 AM


Sounds like a segway to a new thread to me...

I remember when they were called gingers, or possibly spelt segue, one or the other.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2006 9:45 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019